If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Tuesday, the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the 1965 Voting Act which allowed the government to determine which states and counties can change voting laws and procedures. Today, Obama weighed in:

The Supreme Court “made a mistake.”

Not, “I disagree with the decision,” or, “We’ll just have to agree to disagree.” But a mistake. Call me picky, but a guy who is never wrong – never at fault for anything – calling out the Supreme Court (again) for making a “mistake” – an error in judgement, if you will – comes across as a tad bit arrogant, in my book.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Court said it could no longer enforce a requirement that states or localities with a history of discrimination must get federal government approval before changing their election laws or the way they hold elections.

As part of his assessment of SCOTUS’ “mistake,” Obama added that the law was a “cornerstone of democracy” and the High Court “failed to recognize” the degree to which voter suppression is a problem throughout the nation (although, apparently not in Baltimore, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and several other areas which enjoyed in excess of 100% voter turnout in the 2012 presidential election).

The Court said Congress must come up with a new way of determining which states and localities require federal monitoring of elections. Obama promptly urged Congress to figure out how to make it easier for people to vote.

Exactly - both sides are only up in arms about "judicial activism" when it's about a cause they disagree with. One side decried the voting rights decision, the other side decried the gay marriage decision as "judicial activism".

"Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken

Exactly - both sides are only up in arms about "judicial activism" when it's about a cause they disagree with. One side decried the voting rights decision, the other side decried the gay marriage decision as "judicial activism".

Well its activism on gay marriage because its not a civil right, the fags can't their way through the voting booth or by their reps.